Translanguaging and the No Voice Policy in L2 Sign Language Contexts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on translanguaging theory and research to consider a common pedagogical practice in American Sign Language (ASL) as a second language (L2) classroom, the No Voice policy (i.e., spoken language use is forbidden). The No Voice policy serves important cultural and practical purposes, but by nature limits learners’ access to their entire linguistic repertoire, which raises questions about the overall impact of the policy on learners’ language development. Current literature about pedagogical translanguaging has not yet addressed practices that integrate (and, by extension, limit) selective modalities; we evaluate this gap and propose several directions for future research on the topic.Moreover, previous discussions of translanguaging practices involving recognized minority (e.g., Basque, Welsh, Irish) spoken languages are not wholly comparable to sign languages, which are not yet official or fully recognized languages in most countries and are therefore additionally vulnerable.We take into account the impact of ASL L2 learners on the language community, as many learners go on to become interpreters and allies to the deaf community.
 Keywords: American Sign Language as a second language, hearing adult learners, selective modality, pedagogical translanguaging, minority language
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it